Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) PETITIONER inter -alia has prayed for following reliefs: (a) For quashing the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro and order dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koilanchal, Bokaro. (b) Direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner will all consequential benefits.
(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that after following due procedure he was appointed as Constable in District Police, Bokaro in the year 2000. All of a sudden a memorandum of charge served upon him in which it was alleged that he had attended office in drunken stage and absented from parade and also used abusive words. Further charge is that he fled away from the jeep when he was carrying out towards hospital for medical treatment. The petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the show cause denying entire allegations levelled against him. On being not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner a departmental proceeding No. 89 of 2011 was initiated and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiry officer. The Inquiry officer on the basis of the scrutiny of the documents and examining the witnesses has found the charges proved against him. The disciplinary authority after accepting the report of inquiry officer had passed an order of dismissal from service on 29.2.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the same was also rejected without giving adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Neither any witnesses supporting the defence reply given by the petitioner nor any documents had been placed before the inquiry officer. It has further been submitted that no cogent evidence had come before the inquiry officer in support of the charge of taking liquor because no sample of blood or urine had been taken for its examination by the expert as such, the inquiry officer in a very perfunctory manner had proved the charges. The disciplinary authority had accepted the same while the petitioner had also tried to satisfy him but no consideration has been given. Even, the appellate authority had not considered the entire aspect of the matter and upheld the order of dismissal.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner is very serious. It is not expected from a member of disciplined Force to come in drunken stage in office. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had even used abusive language and fled away from the jeep while he was carrying out by other personnel towards hospital for his medical examination and as such, he has committed gross misconduct.;